I believe Ford lost the Pinto case because internal tests discovered the problem and also found an inexpensive fix: a $5 plastic wall between the gas tank and the impact zone of the tank.
In other words, the jury decided the company consciously bypassed a cheap and easy fix to shave a few bucks from manufacturing cost. It was a pretty simple tradeoff. I have to agree with Jury in that case. The car's statistical risk compared to other brands is moot (unless the other brands also discovered and skipped the easy fix, in which case, they may also be liable).
Just about any dimensional space can be represented in fewer dimensions, or even 1 dimension, if you accept some lossy-ness or fuzziness. Imagine a string of digits and codes with the structure: x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type, etc... Where x, y, and z are coordinates in 3D space and "type" is the type of particle. Example single particle encoding: "3629342.3442, 4872042.3987, 193203.0482, Electron". There may need to be more "state" info about a given particle to make it workable, but you get the general idea.
if (client.ie6) {
document.write("This is your IE6 page. It's limited because we are moving to mobile-friendly pages and don't want to keep this old one up. ");
document.write("And no, we're not getting off your lawn.");
window.location("ie6.html"); }
You mean ignore the customers with spare cash to burn in favour of those with no (spare) cash?
Let's say old browser users spend twice as much money at your site as new browser users (typically mobile). Then the break-even point would be when you have twice as many new browser users as old browser users. Example:
IE 8 or less users:
-- 200 transactions per month.
-- Average expenditure: $80.00
-- Total revenue: $16,000
Mobile users:
-- 405 transactions per month.
-- Average expenditure: $40.00
-- Total revenue: $16,200
In this scenario, it's probably time to focus on mobile-friendly sites/apps and dump legacy IE support.
(I'm assuming your org doesn't want to re-code the same app/site for multiple browser versions.)
While traditional "Adam Smith" style economic models say that "free" trade, even lopsided trade, and automation will benefit the overall economy in terms of aggregate GDP; the model says little if anything about the distribution of the benefits of such. For the past 35 years we've seen nearly all of the GDP expansion go to the wealthy. The benefits haven't "trickled down", if you will.
Thus, the 99% may have a good reason to be weary of lopsided trade and automation. It's not just ignorance or fear of change.
I first saw something like this with the Dilbert Mission Statement Generator about 15 to 20 years ago. I haven't been able to find it recently, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe Ford lost the Pinto case because internal tests discovered the problem and also found an inexpensive fix: a $5 plastic wall between the gas tank and the impact zone of the tank.
In other words, the jury decided the company consciously bypassed a cheap and easy fix to shave a few bucks from manufacturing cost. It was a pretty simple tradeoff. I have to agree with Jury in that case. The car's statistical risk compared to other brands is moot (unless the other brands also discovered and skipped the easy fix, in which case, they may also be liable).
To most slashdotters it remains only a theory
"Honey, does this projection make my ass look 4D?"
Just about any dimensional space can be represented in fewer dimensions, or even 1 dimension, if you accept some lossy-ness or fuzziness. Imagine a string of digits and codes with the structure: x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type;x,y,z,type, etc... Where x, y, and z are coordinates in 3D space and "type" is the type of particle. Example single particle encoding: "3629342.3442, 4872042.3987, 193203.0482, Electron". There may need to be more "state" info about a given particle to make it workable, but you get the general idea.
Oops, I forgot a confirmation button or pause. I probably shouldn't bother to care, but some readers flip over such.
Let's say old browser users spend twice as much money at your site as new browser users (typically mobile). Then the break-even point would be when you have twice as many new browser users as old browser users. Example:
IE 8 or less users:
-- 200 transactions per month.
-- Average expenditure: $80.00
-- Total revenue: $16,000
Mobile users:
-- 405 transactions per month.
-- Average expenditure: $40.00
-- Total revenue: $16,200
In this scenario, it's probably time to focus on mobile-friendly sites/apps and dump legacy IE support.
(I'm assuming your org doesn't want to re-code the same app/site for multiple browser versions.)
I installed that app, and it took me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
What are some examples?
While traditional "Adam Smith" style economic models say that "free" trade, even lopsided trade, and automation will benefit the overall economy in terms of aggregate GDP; the model says little if anything about the distribution of the benefits of such. For the past 35 years we've seen nearly all of the GDP expansion go to the wealthy. The benefits haven't "trickled down", if you will.
Thus, the 99% may have a good reason to be weary of lopsided trade and automation. It's not just ignorance or fear of change.
Doesn't seem that way when courting.
If you think that's bad, sugar causes a WingDing font.
PHB1: "We have too much money from oil. What are we going to do with it?"
PHB2: "I got it, let's be IBM! Lets make those computer thingamajigs."
PHB1: "Brilliant! I vote we both get a bonus for that idea."
If you want to punish people for crimes, then find the criminals and prosecute them. Don't take the whole neighborhood.
"Putin, I know you are snooping here. Give back the Superbowl ring and Crimea, you thief. And wave Hello to Mrs. Palin for me."
Crusades had the written intent of swiping "holy lands". Same as it ever was.
My English teacher was Dr. Doolittle.
The rich clusters are getting richer, hogging all the hydrogen gas. Trickle-down hydrogen is not working.
Where is the triple entanglement, I don't follow. Left what long ago?
History consistency shows that in the features versus quality battle in consumer systems, features tend to win again and again. Same as it always was.
I first saw something like this with the Dilbert Mission Statement Generator about 15 to 20 years ago. I haven't been able to find it recently, though.
My fav:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/imag...
First the lens error, and now we find it has a Pentium.
Be a modern day Ben Franklin, per kite experiment.
Here is the quantum algorithm:
1. Do weird stuff
2. If anybody starts to do something useful or interesting with my weird stuff, then STOP doing weird stuff.
3. Go to 1